The Key Differences of Hayes and Holyfields move up from Cruiser to HEAVY

Right;You start by saying you think he can make the transition to HW as well as Holyfield,but finish by saying you think he will lose to Wlad if they meet.Well if he fails,hes not doing as well as Holy is he?

 

To be fair buddy Haye could lose to Wlad and still be a success in the HW division. I stress this as i hope all boxers and boxing fans think this, as it is this stupid attitude that a loss means the end of the world and something that sets a fighter back years that is a detriment to the sport.

With this thinking its no wonder why the best didn't wanna fight the best. But hopefully of recent, match-ups have been getting much better.

 

No way the division was as weak in the late 80's/early 90's as it is today (and in the past 3-4 years). Guys like Ruiz, Byrd, old Maskaev, and Iggy (sorry) wouldn't hold/fight for a belt back then. Anything else the OP said which suggests Holy's move up was tougher I'd agree with especially the same day weigh in difference.

 

Four tough boxers there, but Holyfield only faced one of them in the early 1990s, which he went 1-1 with during that time period. Holyfield was able to have a two year title reign without facing anyone seriously threatening; it would be even easier for Haye to do that with an ABC belt today. I think the chances of Haye choosing such a path, however, are extremely slim.

 

None of those guys hold belts in today's division, though. As for fighting for a belt... Were Bert Cooper, Carl Williams, Michael Dokes or Jesse Ferguson REALLY better than Byrd, Ruiz, Maskaev and Ibragimov in your opinion? That's not including some of the TERRIBLE WBO challenges like Tim Tomashek.

 

What is Zakman's chin-checker analysis? :huh

 

Kurgan's analysis: Holyfield had a much better chin, but Haye has much more power.

 

hell yeah.

tyson was champ.

lewis and bowe were on the rise.

compare that to now.

wlad is the champ.

povetkin and solis on the rise.

hardly the same class as the above 3. :yep

 

Holyfield was a overall way better fighter than Haye will ever be. Haye banks on that one big punch whereas Holyfield parried and moved and was able to do damage with both hands, IMO.

 

I disagree with 3 & 4.

Nobody has more confidence in themselves than Holyfield.

And the heavyweight division today is much weaker than when Holyfield entered.

 

notice i described this division as including the past 3-4 years wherein ruiz, byrd, ibrag, and old maskaev held belts. Ruiz is still lurking around for a shot and although Byrd has been basically gone from the top in the past 1 1/2 years I think my description of the present era isn't so bad.

Tim Tomashek was a guy who came out of the crowd to fight when somebody pulled out right? That doesn't count. Yes Cooper (on a good night) and Dokes were better than those guys. Ferguson was more mid 80's as far as actually condending if I'm not mistaken. Carl Williams was definitely early/mid 80's. Holy clearly came into the HW division in the late 80's when Williams and Ferguson were very fringe contenders at best. Also, i'm pretty sure none of the guys you listed held any ABC belts in the time period we were talking about (very late 80's early 90's). In contrast within the past 3 years ruiz, byrd, maskaev, and ibrag all had straps and a guy like Razor Rudduck would dust all of these guys (RR was nothing more than a top contender back in the day).

edit: i stand corrected in that ferguson did get a shot in 93 against bowe and the "truths" last shot was vs tyson in 89, so i guess you have to consider them contenders around that era, but they only had 1 shot a piece and neither held a belt

 

Well, Haye isn't competing in the heavyweight division of 3-4 years ago, is he?

He was a top 15 rated WBO opponent who was brought to the fight in case the opponent pulled out.

Would you pick a 1991 Cooper to beat Chris Byrd? As for Dokes, running up to his fight with Riddick Bowe he hadn't beaten a top contender since the first Mike Weaver fight.

He challenged for the title in 1993. He also beat Ray Mercer, but that's another story.

Yet he challenged for the title in 1989, after an old Mike Weaver knocked him out in two rounds.

Given that Tyson unified the "major" ABC belts in 1987 and the ABCs + linear belt in 1988, which held together until 1993 when Bowe ducked Lennox Lewis and was stripped of the WBC title, it would have been hard for anyone to hold ABC belts in that time period.

However, there was the WBO title: Francesco Damiani, while a decent boxer, was certainly no better than Ruiz, Byrd, Ibragimov or an old Maskaev.

I don't think they would have been contenders in today's division, though.

I do think it's true that there isn't an impressive crop like Bowe, Mercer, Tyson, Lewis or Ruddock, but Holyfield only fought one of those boxers during the late 1980s and early 1990s, which was my original point. The very top crust of the late 1980s/early 1990s period was better than the top crust of today's division, but Holyfield didn't fight the top crust of the late 1980s/early 1990s. He fought Douglas rather than Tyson, Holmes rather than Ruddock, Cooper rather than Mercer and Foreman rather than Lewis. That was by no means all his fault, but it was a fact.

 

Who gives a rip:

One Word:

Chin.

 

One word:

Concomitant.

 

Good post, Haye has a lot going for him, but to be redundent:

1) Hloyfields chin was special
2) Holyfields will was special
3) Holyfields toughness was special
4) Hloyfields stamina was better, I can't imagine a young Holyfiled gassing out and quitting like Haye did in that one fight against...What was his name?